1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Fourth Circuit Rules In Custer Battles

Fourth Circuit Rules In Custer Battles

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.13.09

The Fourth Circuit in United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC (4th Cir. April 10, 2009), affirmed summary judgment in the contractor's favor in a qui tam case alleging that Custer Battles (represented by C&M) had fraudulently induced the Coalition Provisional Authority to issue it a contract worth $17 million for security services at the Baghdad International Airport, agreeing "with the district court that the relators have not presented evidence sufficient to support a finding that Custer Battles violated the False Claims Act …." However, the Fourth Circuit also reversed judgment as a matter of law in favor of Custer Battles related to another contract Custer Battles had with the CPA for support services for the Dinar Exchange Program and remanded for further proceedings based on its findings that the district court erred in limiting the relators' claims to $3 million by using a "source-of-funds" analysis and in its presentment analysis under sections 3729 (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the FCA, including its holding that presentment must be proven under sections 3729 (a)(2) of the FCA, as the Supreme Court found to the contrary in Allison Engine while the case was on appeal.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24

From the Highchair to the Courtroom: Federal Circuit Serves Up Helpful Guidance on Equitable Defenses in Childproof Placemat Patent Dispute

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation....